Alqadhi v. Standard Parking, Inc.
938 N.E.2d 584
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2010Background
- On September 25, 2001, Alqadhi tripped over a raised 3/4-inch concrete rise in a wheelchair-accessible ramp exiting defendants' parking garage and injured her knees.
- Plaintiff alleged defendants failed to mark or paint the rise, creating a hazardous condition.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing no foreseeable risk and that the condition was open and obvious.
- Plaintiff submitted deposition testimony and an affidavit from a registered professional engineer who opined the lack of contrast paint concealed the elevation change and created an optical illusion of a flat surface.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to both defendants, finding the condition open and obvious; the court later denied plaintiff's motion to reconsider, and this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the condition was open and obvious as a matter of law | Alqadhi argues expert testimony shows lack of contrast and lighting created an illusion, making the danger not open and obvious. | Standard Parking and Center contend the ramp rise was open and obvious and a minor defect; lighting/contrast not creating a factual issue. | No; the issue is fact-driven due to expert testimony and disputed condition visibility. |
| Whether plaintiff's expert testimony creates a factual issue precluding summary judgment | Expert opines lack of contrast painted curb concealed elevation change, creating a dangerous tripping hazard not obvious. | Dispute over physical nature of condition is not enough to defeat open-and-obvious or summary judgment. | Yes; expert testimony creates a material factual question for the trier of fact. |
| Whether the de minimis rule applies to bar the claim | Elevational change plus impaired visibility takes the defect out of de minimis protection. | Minor defect generally not actionable; de minimis should apply absent aggravating factors. | Remains inapplicable given disputed visibility and contributory factors. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bucheleres v. Chicago Park Dist., 171 Ill.2d 435 (1996) (duty factors include likelihood and foreseeability of injury)
- Sollami v. Eaton, 201 Ill.2d 1 (2002) (open-and-obvious doctrine implicates likelihood and foreseeability)
- Deibert v. Bauer Bros. Construction Co., 141 Ill.2d 430 (1990) (open-and-obvious standard defined for juries when factual)
- LaFever v. Kemlite Co., 185 Ill.2d 380 (1998) (duty analysis and open-and-obvious questions rooted in law)